Does the Eleventh Circuit's opinion substantially conflict with Supreme Court precedent by failing to consider and weigh circumstantial evidence against the testifying codefendant when assessing Strickland prejudice?

Either Donald Deardorff or Millard Peacock committed capital murder by killing Ted Turner while robbing , burgl ing, and kidnapping him—the other was guilty of felony (non -capital) murder. The circumstantial evidence against each was essentially equal. On the eve of a joint trial, Peacock —who had once disposed of a body in a 55gallon drum , was linked to both of Turner ’s cars, and cashed all $17,000 in checks written on Turner’s accounts —led authorities to Turner’s body . He later testif ied against Deardorff while claiming he simply participated in the underlying felonies with no intent to kill (felony murder is not capital in Alabama). Peacock received a 15-year sentence , which he finished serving a decade ago , yet Deardorff faces execution . The key evidence against Deardorff was an accusatory codicil —handwritten by Turner on his last will and testament just weeks before his disappearance —in which he preemptively accused Deardorff of his murder , admitted without objection or limiting instruction . The prosecutor told the jury it was the best evidence that Deardorff killed Turner . In state post -conviction , Deardorff brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object on Confrontation Clause grounds . The state court s denied re lief, finding no deficient performance . Federal habeas relief was denied on alternate grounds —a de novo determination that Strickland prejudice had not been shown. In doing so , the Eleventh Circuit discussed Peacock’s confession and testimony, along with circumstantial evidence implicating Deardorff —while omitting abundant circumstantial evidence against Peacock —in conclud ing “ample evidence” supported the jury’s verdict on the capital murder charge. The Question Presented is: Does the opinion below substantially conflict with this Court’s decisions , including Thornell v. Jones and Berghuis v. Thompkins, where it failed to mention — let alone consider and weigh —the abundant circumstantial evidence against the testifying codefendant in assessing prejudice under Strickland ?